Ed Dueling protests spark state of emergency in Virginia.

[LSSBB]

And by the arguments in the very case you quoted, it's clear that a law against Confederate monuments would not hold up.



Statues are not fighting words.

Sophistry.

A picture is worth a thousand words - a solid object even more so.

 

[Thermal]

So your position is giant yard signs that say "Jesus loves you" and statues of Lenin on private property amount to "obscenity, incitement, fighting words, and other expression not always protected"?

No. No, that is not remotely what I said. I refer very clearly to Confederate imagery, and that I believe its public display can be viewed as a form of assault on some parts of the public, and I think that Confederate imagery is arguably 'fighting expression', a variant of fighting words, and should lose its protective status. This is very different from a Jesus Loves You sign, which I do not claim is a fighting expression. Clearer?

 

[Thermal]

And by the arguments in the very case you quoted, it's clear that a law against Confederate monuments would not hold up.



Statues are not fighting words.

Think about Scalia's wording: fighting words insult or provoke violence on the basis of race or color, and are unprotected. Is it such a stretch to view Confederate imagery as insulting to blacks? I think that despite RAV v St Paul's wording, which seems to reaffirm the protection of hate speech, we are very close to some kinds of hate speech losing their protected status.

 

[BobTheCoward]

. Is it such a stretch to view Confederate imagery as insulting to blacks?.

Huge stretch to fighting words.

 

[xjx388]

What if I commissioned a statue of you being lynched?

That would be perfectly legal. In poor taste, but legal. Kathy Griffith wasn't facing legal repercussions for her ISIS-like display, but she sure did get a lot of public scorn. I think we need to let the haters make themselves as visible as possible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[xjx388]

Sophistry.



A picture is worth a thousand words - a solid object even more so.

Nice cliche, but SCOTUS decisions disagree with you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thermal]

Huge stretch to fighting words.

I'm not so sure. If Confederate statuary is viewed as advocating blacks being in chains as property, that would be insulting to a protected group, and unprotected, no? I get why this is not the current view, but I think it toes the line more than is generally acknowledged.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I'm not so sure. If Confederate statuary is viewed as advocating blacks being in chains as property, that would be insulting to a protected group, and unprotected, no? I get why this is not the current view, but I think it toes the line more than is generally acknowledged.

Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court ruled that speech on a matter of public concern, on a public street, cannot be the basis of liability for a tort of emotional distress, even in the circumstances that the speech is viewed or interpreted as "offensive" or "outrageous".

The fighting words doctrine is restricted to a personal context. If I was getting into an argument with my neighbor and said the Confederacy was right to anger him, that is not protected. Advocacy of slavery is not fighting words.

 

[Thermal]

The fighting words doctrine is restricted to a personal context. If I was getting into an argument with my neighbor and said the Confederacy was right to anger him, that is not protected. Advocacy of slavery is not fighting words.

Liability for emotional distress is a very different subject. Not the topic here.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Liability for emotional distress is a very different subject. Not the topic here.

The fact they limited it to a liability is related with the peculiars of the case. No lawyer read that supreme Court decision and thought there is wiggle room on this issue outside of liability.

From Wikipedia

In an 8–1 decision (with the justices ruling the same way as they did in United States v. Stevens in 2010),[28] the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Phelps, upholding the Fourth Circuit's decision. Chief Justice John Roberts (as in the Stevens case) wrote the majority opinion stating "What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it chose to say it, is entitled to 'special protection' under the First Amendment and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous."

 

[Mumbles]

Think about Scalia's wording: fighting words insult or provoke violence on the basis of race or color, and are unprotected. Is it such a stretch to view Confederate imagery as insulting to blacks? I think that despite RAV v St Paul's wording, which seems to reaffirm the protection of hate speech, we are very close to some kinds of hate speech losing their protected status.

Scalia was a clown, Period.

These monuments were mostly meant to be insults directed at black people, in particular. Tear them down.

 

[caveman1917]

“They have no allegiance to liberal democracy”: an expert on antifa explains the group

 

[xjx388]

I'm not so sure. If Confederate statuary is viewed as advocating blacks being in chains as property, that would be insulting to a protected group, and unprotected, no? I get why this is not the current view, but I think it toes the line more than is generally acknowledged.

#1, I don't know where you are getting the idea that something that is insulting to a protected racial group is unprotected as "fighting words." That simply isn't true.

#2 RE: the highlighted: The fact that a form of speech could be interpreted one way is not sufficient to cause it to be unprotected.

 

[jimbob]

“They have no allegiance to liberal democracy”: an expert on antifa explains the group

Isn't that why you like them, and I think that they are only good when defending people against actual violent Nazis?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Isn't that why you like them, and I think that they are only good when defending people against actual violent Nazis?

It isn't given that liberal democracy is good.

 

[Giordano]

#1, I don't know where you are getting the idea that something that is insulting to a protected racial group is unprotected as "fighting words." That simply isn't true.
#2 RE: the highlighted: The fact that a form of speech could be interpreted one way is not sufficient to cause it to be unprotected.

I don't believe that a court has ever decided that insulting depictions of minorities on public land are not protected as free speech, but I am not certain it is as clear cut as you state. There are definite rules against displaying inside places of work and public buildings images that create a hostile work space or seek to discourage certain customers from patronizing the establishment. And being able to interpret the same image in an unoffensive manner does not automatically allow it to be displayed. Displaying gratuitous images of naked women in sexual posses in an office is considered creating a hostile work space even if some might see them as "art." The general rule is how a "reasonable person" would react.

IANAL, but I can imagine someone arguing that the rules apply outside on publicly held land. I suspect it might be a hard sell, but not because of the "free speech" issue: I doubt that a statue on public land that depicted a Nazi stereotype of a Jew with a large nose, bags of money, and leering over a "white" woman, or a KKK stereotype of a Black person, would survive its first court test. Rather in the case of Civil War monuments the court would have to be convinced that the imagery was so inherently offensive as to offend a "reasonable person." Undoubtedly it would depend on the monument. Again IANAL, but I at least I know that I am not. I am speculating but I do think that the issue is more complex than you think.

More generally, and relating to morality rather than to law: I see public space as being owned by all the public and find it very questionable to have on display statues that are offensive to a large percent of the public. I am not suggesting that people have a right not to be offended: all types of speech, images, etc. should be allowed in public spaces, no matter how offensive, as long as these are expressions of private individuals or groups. But it is a different matter for certain speech, images, statues to be endorsed by the government. Although typically erected by private groups, most of the Confederate monuments are clearly endorsed by government- they are allowed to remain on public land unlike other art, and are generally maintained and protected by the government. Further, I suspect that erecting a Civil War monument in Georgia dedicated to General Sherman would run into serious problems, indicating that one point of view is being officially endorsed versus to another.

 

[jimbob]

It isn't given that liberal democracy is good.

Personally, I think that it seems the least bad system of government that has been tried in human history.

 

[jimbob]

I don't believe that a court has ever decided that insulting depictions of minorities on public land are not protected as free speech, but I am not certain it is as clear cut as you state. There are definite rules against displaying inside places of work and public buildings images that create a hostile work space or seek to discourage certain customers from patronizing the establishment. And being able to interpret the same image in an unoffensive manner does not automatically allow it to be displayed. Displaying gratuitous images of naked women in sexual posses in an office is considered creating a hostile work space even if some might see them as "art." The general rule is how a "reasonable person" would react.

IANAL, but I can imagine someone arguing that the rules apply outside on publicly held land. I suspect it might be a hard sell, but not because of the "free speech" issue: I doubt that a statue on public land that depicted a Nazi stereotype of a Jew with a large nose, bags of money, and leering over a "white" woman, or a KKK stereotype of a Black person, would survive its first court test. Rather in the case of Civil War monuments the court would have to be convinced that the imagery was so inherently offensive as to offend a "reasonable person." Undoubtedly it would depend on the monument. Again IANAL, but I at least I know that I am not. I am speculating but I do think that the issue is more complex than you think.

More generally, and relating to morality rather than to law: I see public space as being owned by all the public and find it very questionable to have on display statues that are offensive to a large percent of the public. I am not suggesting that people have a right not to be offended: all types of speech, images, etc. should be allowed in public spaces, no matter how offensive, as long as these are expressions of private individuals or groups. But it is a different matter for certain speech, images, statues to be endorsed by the government. Although typically erected by private groups, most of the Confederate monuments are clearly endorsed by government- they are allowed to remain on public land unlike other art, and are generally maintained and protected by the government. Further, I suspect that erecting a Civil War monument in Georgia dedicated to General Sherman would run into serious problems, indicating that one point of view is being officially endorsed versus to another.

I am also sure that it would be possible to create a statue that would be seen as a threat, say a model of your house with statues of your decapitated children in their bedrooms, for example. To say nothing of obscene images.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No. No, that is not remotely what I said. I refer very clearly to Confederate imagery, and that I believe its public display can be viewed as a form of assault on some parts of the public, and I think that Confederate imagery is arguably 'fighting expression', a variant of fighting words, and should lose its protective status. This is very different from a Jesus Loves You sign, which I do not claim is a fighting expression. Clearer?

Once again you come full circle back to ignoring the free speech/private property aspect that is my point.

No need to waste more of my time with this dodge of the issue.

 

[sadhatter]

No. No, that is not remotely what I said. I refer very clearly to Confederate imagery, and that I believe its public display can be viewed as a form of assault on some parts of the public, and I think that Confederate imagery is arguably 'fighting expression', a variant of fighting words, and should lose its protective status. This is very different from a Jesus Loves You sign, which I do not claim is a fighting expression. Clearer?

But what makes you right and the person who would want the same done for the Jesus sign wrong?

If we are going to say feelings matter who gets to decide who's feelings don't?